James Rachels Arguments About The Euthanasia Debate

3. Prompt Six (Word Count: )

James Rachels describes two different scenarios to preface his argument about the euthanasia debate. First, there is Smith. Smith will receive a large amount of money if his ‘six-year-old’ family member dies (Timmons, 2016). When Smith’s relative is vulnerable and alone in his ‘bath,’ Smith murders the child, careful to make it seem as though the child died on his own (Timmons, 2016). Rachels then tells the reader about Jones. Jones will receive a large amount of money if his ‘six-year-old’ relative dies (Timmons, 2016). Jones shares Smith’s murderous desire to get the money and wants to submerge his family member’s head underwater while the relative is ‘bathing’ (Timmons, 2016). While Smith actually commits the

339). Specifically, Rachels disagrees with the argument that “active” and “passive euthanasia” are dissimilar because, in “passive euthanasia,” the medical practitioner is not completing an activity (Timmons, 2016, p. 339). The medical practitioner does complete an activity, he or she permits the person in his care to pass away (Timmons, 2016). The morality of the doctor can be questioned the same way, particularly if the individual in his or her care had a disease that could easily be treated (Timmons, 2016). In either case, the individual could face judgment for his actions, even in judicial proceedings (Timmons, 2016). However, Rachels disregards a judicial perspective, focusing on the claim that death is outrageously wicked regardless (Timmons, 2016). Even though death is this way, if someone decides euthanasia is the better option than death, then the situation of the individual staying alive is just as nefarious (Timmons, 2016). Thus, the rationality behind refusing to kill anyone is not relevant (Timmons,

However, they are still expected to follow rules, like the AMA proclamation that incorporates individual morality into its creed (Timmons, 2016). In these instances, “active euthanasia” is never justified, but “passive euthanasia” is (Timmons, 2016, p. 336). Rachels ends his argument by, once again, denying this claim and suggesting the only dissimilarities between these types of euthanasia is in the implications each one produces, which could necessitate “active euthanasia” as the best choice (Timmons, 2016, p. 339). There is no distinction between euthanasia, but, if medical practitioners are forced to make one, these individuals should ponder this and only this (Timmons, 2016). Rachels advises these individuals to avoid incorporating such notions into formal, written documents that constitute certain procedures into patient care (Timmons, 2016). Rachels acknowledges that “active euthanasia” and “passive euthanasia” are not the same, and more people should think of that before another person’s life is taken away from them (Timmons, 2016, p.